ReviewJournal of neuroscience methods2023
A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods.
Review in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioelectronic Direct Current Stimulation at the Transition Between Reversible and Irreversible Charge Transfer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Brain stimulation-on-a-chip: a neuromodulation platform for brain slices.Lab on a chip · 2023Article
- Generation of direct current electrical fields as regenerative therapy for spinal cord injury: A review.APL bioengineering · 2023Review
- Dose-response relationships in transcranial brain stimulation: Physics, physiology and mechanism.Brain stimulationReview
- How conductivity boundaries influence the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in in vitro experiments.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation method to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, its underlying neural mechanisms warrant further investigation. Indeed, dose-response interrelations are poorly understood. Placing explanted brain tissue, mostly from mice or rats, into a uniform direct current electric field (dcEF) is a well-established in vitro system to elucidate the neural mechanism of tDCS. Nevertheless, we will show that generating a defined, uniform, and constant dcEF throughout a brain slice is challenging. This article critically reviews the methods used to generate and calibrate a uniform dcEF. We use finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the widely used parallel electrode configuration and show that it may not reliably generate uniform dcEF within a brain slice inside an open interface or submerged chamber. Moreover, equivalent circuit analysis and measurements inside a testing chamber suggest that calibrating the dcEF intensity with two recording electrodes can inaccurately capture the true EF magnitude in the targeted tissue when specific criteria are not met. Finally, we outline why microfluidic chambers are an effective and calibration-free approach of generating spatiotemporally uniform dcEF for DCS in vitro studies, facilitating accurate and fine-scale dcEF adjustments. We are convinced that improving the precision and addressing the limitations of current experimental platforms will substantially improve the reproducibility of in vitro experimental results. A better mechanistic understanding of dose-response relations will ultimately facilitate more effective non-invasive stimulation therapies in patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.